Appendix E Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

M2 Lane Cove Road Eastbound On-ramp Modification Environmental Assessment

Appendix E Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

M2 Motorway Lane Cove Road Ramp

Construction and Operational Noise Assessment

Report Number 610.11241!R1

16 August 2012

AECOM

Level 21, 420 George Street,

Sydney NSW 2000

Version: Revision 3

AECOM M2 Motorway Lane Cove Road Ramp Construction and Operational Noise Assessment

Report Number 610.11241!R1 16 August 2012

Revision 3 Page 2

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

M2 Motorway Lane Cove Road Ramp

Construction and Operational Noise Assessment

PREPARED BY:

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd ABN 29 001 584 612

2 Lincoln Street Lane Cove NSW 2066 Australia

(PO Box 176 Lane Cove NSW 1595 Australia)

T: 61 2 9428 8100 F: 61 2 9427 8200

E: [email protected] www.slrconsulting.com

This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd

with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the

manpower and resources devoted to it by agreement with the Client.

Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected,

which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of AECOM .

No warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties.

This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR Consulting.

SLR Consulting disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Reference Status Date Prepared Checked Authorised

610.11241!R1 Revision 3 16 August 2012 John Sleeman Mark Blake John Sleeman

610.11241!R1 Revision 2 15 August 2012 John Sleeman Mark Blake John Sleeman

610.11241!R1 Revision 1 31 May 2012 John Sleeman Mark Blake John Sleeman

610.11241!R1 Revision 0 22 May 2012 John Sleeman Mark Blake John Sleeman



Revision 3 Page 3

Table of Contents


1 INTRODUCTION 5

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED WORKS 5

3 OPERATIONAL NOISE GOALS 7

4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION GOALS 8

4.1 Background Noise Levels 8

4.2 Construction Noise Management Levels 8

4.3 Construction Vibration Assessment Criteria 9

4.4 Ground!Borne (Regenerated) Noise 11

5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE PREDICTIONS AND ASSESSMENT 11

5.1 Methodology and Assumptions 11

5.2 Modifying Factors 12

5.3 Assessment of Construction Works 12

5.3.1Noise 12

5.3.2Discussion 16

5.4 Construction Vibration Assessment 16

5.5 Construction Ground!borne Noise Assessment 16

5.6 Construction Mitigation Measures 17

6 OPERATIONAL NOISE 17

6.1 Noise Modelling 17

6.1.1Discussion 18

7 CONCLUSION 18

TABLES

Table 1 Construction Scenarios for the M2 Lane Cove Road Ramp 6

Table 2 Operational Traffic Noise Criteria 7

Table 3 LA90 RBL Noise Levels 8

Table 4 Project NMLs 8

Table 5 Acceptable Vibration Dose Values for Intermittent Vibration (m/s1.75

) (OEH Assessing Vibration: a technical guideline) 9

Table 6 DIN 4150 ! Structural Damage ! Safe Limits for Long!Term Building Vibration 10



Revision 3 Page 4

Table of Contents


Table 7 DIN 4150 Structural Damage ! Safe Limits for Short!term Building Vibration 10

Table 8 Construction Noise Predictions 13

FIGURES

Figure 1 DIN 4150 Graph of Vibration Guide Values for Structural Damage 11

APPENDICES

Appendix A Acoustic Terminology



Revision 3 Page 5


1 INTRODUCTION

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR Consulting) has been engaged by AECOM Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM) to assess the potential construction and operational noise from the proposed M2 Motorway Lane Cove Road Ramp (the Project).

The Project is a new eastbound on!ramp from Lane Cove Road to the M2 Motorway. The Project features a new sound bound exit lane off Lane Cove Road before the M2 underpass, and widening of the M2 for approximately 700 m east of the underpass to accommodate the merging of eastbound on!ramp traffic. This report assesses the noise impact of construction activities associated with the building of the on!ramp and the potential change in operational traffic noise emissions from its operation.

The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the NSW Environment and Protection Authority’s (EPA’s) Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) and also with reference to the methodology set out in the Transport Construction Authority (TCA): Construction Noise Strategy (TCA Strategy). Specific acoustic terminology is used within this report. An explanation of common terms is included as Appendix A.

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED WORKS

The on ramp construction would involve earthworks, pavement construction and road widening on the eastern side of Lane Cove Road for approximately 150 m north of the M2 underpass, and on the northern side of the M2 motorway for approximately 700 m east of the M2 underpass, being from the underpass to the Wicks Road overpass. The total length of the roadworks is approximately 850 m.

The construction scenarios and associated plant and equipment proposed to be utilised during the construction of the Project have been provided by AECOM and are identified in Table 1.



Revision 3 Page 6


Table 1 Construction Scenarios for the M2 Lane Cove Road Ramp

Scenario Works Plant and Equipment Location Description Time

1A Roadwidening Excavator 30t Truck (delivery / removal) Concrete Truck Concrete Saw Mobile Crane Vibratory Roller Grader

Full length of road works Day

1B Roadwidening Rocksawing and breaking Earthworks

As scenario 1A plus: Rocksaw Rockbreaker Compressor Generator


2 Post and Panel Retaining Walls

Piling rig (bored) Excavator 30t Backhoe Truck (delivery / removal) Generator Compressor Crane (up to 70t) Concrete pump Vibratory roller

For 100 m north east of the M2 underpass and for 300 m starting 250 m east of the M2 underpass

Day

3 Cross!Stitching & Temporary Median Works

Rockbreaker Jackhammer Truck (delivery / removal) Concrete Truck Concrete Saw Mobile Crane Vibratory Roller

Full length of road works Night

4 Intelligent Transport System (ITS) Works

Excavator 30t Truck (delivery / removal) Concrete Truck Concrete Saw Reinforcement cutting Mobile Crane Generator Lighting tower


5 Re!Surfacing Asphalt Works

Asphalt paver Vibratory Roller Tip trucks Road profiler

Full length of road works Day and Night

6 Traffic Management, Set!Up and Line Marking

Truck (delivery / removal) Mobile Crane (Franna) Generator Lighting tower


7 Hydroblasting Drilling rig Truck (delivery / removal) Compressor Generator Jackhammer Mobile Crane Lighting tower

Wicks Road Bridge Night

8a Bridgeworks (Daytime ! Bored Piling,

Piling rig (bored) Rockbreaker

Wicks Road Bridge Day



Revision 3 Page 7


Scenario Works Plant and Equipment Location Description Time

Abutments and Piers, Deck and Finishing)

Excavator 30t Backhoe Truck (delivery / removal) Generator Compressor Jackhammer Crane (up to 70t) Concrete pump Vibratory roller Concrete saw

8b Bridgeworks (Evening and Night!time works)

Generator Compressor Concrete Truck Concrete Pump Concrete Vibrator Truck (delivery / removal) Mobile crane (300t) Boom lift

Wicks Road Bridge Night

9 Electronic and directional sign installation and relocation

Mobile crane Truck (delivery and removal) Compressor Pneumatic tools Elevated Work Platform


10 Guardrails and concrete barriers

Bobcat Compressor Slip form paver Truck (delivery / removal)


Notes 1. Recommended standard construction hours are Monday to Friday 7 am to 6 pm and Saturday 8 am to 1 pm. Daytime ‘out of hours’ (OoH) is Saturday 1 pm to 6 pm and Sunday 8 am to 6 pm

3 OPERATIONAL NOISE GOALS

In March 2011, the NSW Environment Protection Authority issued the “NSW Road Noise Policy” (RNP). This document provides guidance for assessing traffic noise impacts through setting design objectives for a range of development types and provides procedures for determining noise mitigation in situations where exceedances of the objectives occur.

The RNP embodies a non!mandatory performance based approach. The proposed criteria (or objectives) are to be applied as targets, applicable to the future volumes of traffic projected to 10 years time, however it is recognised that situations would exist where planning strategies are not feasible.

The proposed ramp is classified as a “Redevelopment of an Existing Freeway/Arterial Road”. Based on this definition the appropriate criteria are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Operational Traffic Noise Criteria

Road Category Type of project/land use Assessment criteria 2 dBA

Day (7 am to 10 pm)

Night (10 pm to 7 am)

Freeway/arterial/sub!arterial road

Existing residences affected by noise from redevelopment of existing freeway/arterial/sub!arterial road

LAeq(15 hr) 60 dBA

LAeq(9 hr) 55 dBA



Revision 3 Page 8


The RNP also states that ‘where existing traffic noise levels are above the noise assessment criteria, the primary objective is to reduce these through feasible and reasonable measures to meet the assessment criteria. And furthermore notes ‘in assessing feasible and reasonable mitigation measures, an increase of up to 2 dB represents a minor impact that is considered barely perceptible to the average person’.

4 CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION GOALS

4.1 Background Noise Levels

As part of the original EA, noise monitoring was conducted at 1 Fontenoy Road and the corresponding Rating Background Levels (RBLs) as determined using the procedures set out in the EPA’s Industrial Noise Policy (INP) have been adopted. These RBLs are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 LA90 RBL Noise Levels

Address Construction Noise Indices (RBL) (dBA)

Daytime Period 1 Evening Period

2 Night2time Period

3

1 Fontenoy Road 54 52 42

Note: Daytime – 7 am to 6 pm, evening – 6 pm to 10 pm, night!time – 10 pm to 7 am.

4.2 Construction Noise Management Levels

Construction Noise Catchment Areas (NCAs) have been developed for the Project, corresponding to the land usage.

The NCAs developed for the Project and the corresponding NMLs are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Project NMLs

NCA Receiver ID

Receiver Type

Address LAeq(15minute) NML (dBA)

Standard Const.

Out2of2Hours

Daytime (RBL + 10)

Daytime (RBL + 5)

Evening (RBL + 5)

Night�time (RBL + 5)

NCA1 R1 Residential 1 Fontenoy Road Macquarie Park – Multistorey apartments west of Lane Cove Road and opposite the Ramp

64 59 57 47

NCA2 C1 Commercial Lot 2 Lane Cove Road – Eden Gardens Commercial nursery east of the Ramp

70 70 N/A N/A

NCA3 C2 Commercial 137 Wicks Road – Commercial building north of the M2

70 70 N/A N/A

NCA4 C3 Commercial Several commercial buildings south of the M2, between Lane Cove Road and Wicks Road

70 70 N/A N/A

NCA5 C4 Commercial 2!4 Talavera Road ! Commercial building south west of the of the Lane Cove Road/M2 underpass

70 70 N/A N/A



Revision 3 Page 9


4.3 Construction Vibration Assessment Criteria

When dealing with construction vibration, the effects on buildings can be divided into three main categories:

• Those in which the occupants or users of the building are inconvenienced or possibly disturbed.

• Those where the building contents may be affected.

• Those in which the integrity of the building or the structure itself may be prejudiced.

Human Comfort Vibration

The EPA’s Assessing Vibration: a technical guideline provides guideline values for continuous, transient and intermittent events that are based on a Vibration Dose Value (VDV) rather than a continuous vibration level. The Vibration Dose Value is dependent upon the level and duration of the short!term vibration event, as well as the number of events occurring during the daytime or night!time period.

The Vibration Dose Values recommended in the document for vibration of an intermittent nature (ie construction works where more than three distinct vibration events occur) are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Acceptable Vibration Dose Values for Intermittent Vibration (m/s1.75

) (OEH Assessing Vibration: a technical guideline)

Structural Damage Vibration

German Standard DIN 4150: Part 3!1999 “Structural Vibration: Effects of vibration on structures”, provides guidelines for evaluating the effects of vibration on structures. The “safe limits” given in DIN 4150 are the vibration levels up to which no damage due to vibration effects has been observed.

Suspected damage to structures caused by ground vibration from construction works often involves other contributing factors. These include poor foundation conditions, differential foundation settlement, reactive soils and changing weather patterns, differential thermal expansion, inadequate structural design, deficient construction methods and structural overloading. Generally, no single factor is usually solely responsible for the onset of damage and all can be exacerbated by the presence of vibration.

Most commonly specified “safe” structural vibration limits are designed to minimise the risk of threshold or cosmetic surface cracks and are set well below the levels having the potential to cause damage to the main structure. It would only be in extreme or unusual situations that these “safe” vibration limits would not adequately cater for the existing stress condition of the structure.



Revision 3 Page 10


German Standard DIN 4150: Part�3:1999 Guidelines

For continuous long!term vibration or repetitive vibration with the potential to cause fatigue effects, DIN 4150 provides the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) values as safe limits presented in Table 6, below which even superficial cosmetic damage is not to be expected:

Table 6 DIN 4150 2 Structural Damage 2 Safe Limits for Long2Term Building Vibration

Line Type of Structure Guideline Values for Vibration Velocity in the Horizontal Plane of the Highest Floor at All Frequencies

1 Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial buildings and buildings of similar design

10 mm/s

2 Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or occupancy 5 mm/s

3 Structures that because of their particular sensitivity to vibration, cannot be classified under lines 1 and 2 and are of great intrinsic value (eg listed buildings under preservation order)

2.5 mm/s

For short!term vibration events (ie those unlikely to cause resonance or fatigue), German Standard DIN 4150.3!1999 offers the criteria presented numerically in Table 7 and graphically in Figure 1. These are maximum levels measured in any direction at the foundation or in the horizontal axes in the plane of the uppermost floor.

Table 7 DIN 4150 Structural Damage 2 Safe Limits for Short2term Building Vibration

Group Type of Structure Peak Particle Velocity (mm/s)

At Foundation Plane of Floor of Uppermost Storey

1 Hz to 10 Hz

10 Hz to 50 Hz

50 Hz to 100 Hz

1 All Frequencies

1 Buildings used for commercial purposes, industrial buildings and buildings of similar design

20 20 at 10 Hz increasing to 40 at 50 Hz

40 at 50 Hz increasing to 50 at 100 Hz

40

2 Dwellings and buildings of similar design and/or use



15

3 Structures that because of their particular sensitivity to vibration, do not correspond to those listed in Lines 1 or 2 ad have intrinsic value (eg buildings that are under a preservation order



8

Note 1: For frequencies above 100 Hz the upper value in this column should be used.

The “safe limits” given in DIN 4150 are the levels up to which no damage due to vibration effects has been observed for the particular class of building. “Damage” is defined by DIN 4150 to include even minor non!structural effects such as superficial cracking in cement render, the enlargement of cracks already present, and the separation of partitions or intermediate walls from load bearing walls.



Revision 3 Page 11


Figure 1 DIN 4150 Graph of Vibration Guide Values for Structural Damage

4.4 Ground2Borne (Regenerated) Noise

Ground!borne (or regenerated) construction noise is usually present on tunnelling projects when vibration from activities such as rockbreaking, road heading, rotary cutting, tunnel boring and rock drilling/sawing can be transmitted through the ground and into the habitable areas of nearby buildings. Ground!borne noise occurs when this vibration in the ground and/or building elements is regenerated as audible noise within areas of occupancy inside the building.

The EPA’s ICNG defines internal ground!borne noise goals for residential receivers of 40 dBA LAeq(15minute) during the evening (6:00 pm to 10:00 pm) and 35 dBA LAeq(15minute) during the night!time (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The goals are only applicable when ground!borne noise levels are higher than airborne noise levels.

5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE PREDICTIONS AND ASSESSMENT

5.1 Methodology and Assumptions

SoundPLAN V7 software was used for modelling the construction noise emissions. The model includes ground topography, buildings and representative noise sources. At the relatively small offset distances between construction sites and receivers weather effects have little influence on noise propagation and hence neutral meteorological conditions were assumed.

The calculated noise levels would inevitably depend on the number of plant items and equipment operating at any one time and their precise location relative to the receiver of interest.

1

10

100

1 10 100

Frequency (Hz)

Vib

ratio

n V

elo

city (

mm

/s)

DIN4150 Commercial Buildings

No Damage ! DIN4150 Sensitive Structures

No Damage ! DIN4150 Dwellings



Revision 3 Page 12


In practice, the noise levels would vary due to the fact that plant and equipment would move about the work sites and would not all be operating concurrently. In some cases, reductions in noise levels would occur when plant are located in cuttings or behind embankments or buildings.

The sound power levels for typical items of plant required to carry out the works are based on SLR Consulting’s data base, those provided by AECOM and measurements of equipment used on the M2 Upgrade. These noise levels are representative of modern plant operating with noise control measures in good condition.

5.2 Modifying Factors

The ICNG requires that construction activities which have been proven to be “annoying” have a 5 dBA penalty applied to them. The ICNG identifies the following activities as being particularly annoying and as such, a 5 dBA correction has been incorporated into the noise modelling process for them.

• use of power saws, such as used for cutting timber, rail lines, masonry, road pavement or steel work

• grinding metal, concrete or masonry

• rock drilling

• line drilling

• vibratory rolling

• bitumen milling or profiling

• jackhammering, rock hammering or rock breaking

• impact piling

5.3 Assessment of Construction Works

5.3.1 Noise

Construction noise levels have been predicted at the nearest receiver locations to the proposed construction works. The resultant daytime, evening and night!time LAeq(15minute) noise level predictions, where appropriate, are presented in Table 8 for the various activities and compared with the relevant Noise Management Levels.

The ICNG states that where construction works are planned to extend over more than two consecutive nights, the impact assessment should cover the maximum noise level from the proposed works. Whilst it is noted that some of the activities are only expected to last for a single night in certain locations, this assessment is also summarised in Table 8.

The calculated noise levels would inevitably depend on the number of plant items and equipment operating at any one time and their precise location relative to the receiver of interest. In practice, the noise levels would vary due to the fact that plant and equipment would move about the worksites and would not all be operating concurrently. In some cases, reductions in noise levels would occur when plant are located in cuttings or behind embankments, buildings or even other items of equipment.

A review of the SLR construction noise source database and experience on previous construction projects indicates that 8 dBA could be added to the predicted LAeq(15minute) noise levels in order to give a conservative estimate of the LA1(60second) noise emission levels.



Revision 3 Page 13


Table 8 Construction Noise Predictions

NCA Rx Scenario Noise Level – LAeq(15minute) (dBA) Noise Level – LA1(60sec) (dBA)

Worst�case Predicted

NML Exceed. Worst�case Predicted

Screen. Crit. RBL+15 dBA

Exceed.

Day Day (OoF)

Eve Night Day Day (OoF)

Eve Night

NCA1 R1 1a Roadwidening (daytime & night) 76 64 59 N/A N/A 12 17 ! ! 84 N/A !

NCA1 R1 1b Roadwidening, breaking, earthworks 80 64 59 N/A N/A 16 21 ! ! 88 N/A !

NCA1 R1 2 Post and panel retaining walls 71 64 59 N/A N/A 7 12 ! ! 79 N/A !

NCA1 R1 3 Cross!stitching, median works 55 64 59 57 47 63 57 6

NCA1 R1 4 Intelligent Transport System 76 64 59 N/A N/A 12 17 ! ! 84 N/A !

NCA1 R1 5 Re!surfacing asphalt works 71 64 59 57 47 7 12 14 24 79 57 22

NCA1 R1 6 Traffic management, line marking 63 64 59 57 47 ! 4 6 16 71 57 14

NCA1 R1 7 Hydroblasting 41 64 59 57 47 ! ! ! ! 49 57 !

NCA1 R1 8a Bridgeworks (daytime) 50 64 59 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! 58 N/A !

NCA1 R1 8b Bridgeworks (evening and night) 41 64 59 57 47 ! ! ! ! 49 57 !

NCA1 R1 9 Sign installation 64 64 59 57 47 ! 5 7 17 72 57 15

NCA1 R1 10 Guardrails and concrete barriers 66 64 59 N/A N/A 2 7 ! ! 74 N/A 17

NCA2 C1 1a Roadwidening 81 70 70 N/A N/A 11 11 ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 1b Roadwidening, breaking, earthworks 85 70 70 N/A N/A 15 15 ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 2 Post and panel retaining walls 78 70 70 N/A N/A 8 8 ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 3 Cross!stitching, median works 58 70 70 N/A N/A ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 4 Intelligent Transport System 81 70 70 N/A N/A 11 11 ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 5 Re!surfacing asphalt works 76 70 70 N/A N/A 6 6 ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 6 Traffic management, line marking 68 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 7 Hydroblasting 40 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !



Revision 3 Page 14






Exceed.

Day Day (OoF)


Eve Night

NCA2 C1 8a Bridgeworks (daytime) 49 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 8b Bridgeworks (evening and night) 40 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 9 Sign installation 69 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA2 C1 10 Guardrails and concrete barriers 71 70 70 N/A N/A 1 1 ! ! N/A N/A !



NCA3 C2 2 Post and panel retaining walls 64 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA3 C2 3 Cross!stitching, median works 78 70 70 N/A N/A 8 8 ! ! N/A N/A !


NCA3 C2 5 Re!surfacing asphalt works 69 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !



NCA3 C2 8a Bridgeworks (daytime) 78 70 70 N/A N/A 8 8 ! ! N/A N/A !



NCA3 C2 10 Guardrails and concrete barriers 64 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !



NCA4 C3 2 Post and panel retaining walls 66 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA4 C3 3 Cross!stitching, median works 78 70 70 N/A N/A 8 8 ! ! N/A N/A !



Revision 3 Page 15






Exceed.

Day Day (OoF)


Eve Night


NCA4 C3 5 Re!surfacing asphalt works 69 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !



NCA4 C3 8a Bridgeworks (daytime) 78 70 70 N/A N/A 8 8 ! ! N/A N/A !



NCA4 C3 10 Guardrails and concrete barriers 64 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! ! N/A N/A !

NCA5 C4 1a Roadwidening 55 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 1b Roadwidening, breaking, earthworks 59 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 2 Post and panel retaining walls 52 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 3 Cross!stitching, median works 56 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 4 Intelligent Transport System 55 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 5 Re!surfacing asphalt works 50 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 6 Traffic management, line marking 42 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 7 Hydroblasting 40 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 8a Bridgeworks (daytime) 49 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 8b Bridgeworks (evening and night) 40 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 9 Sign installation 43 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

NCA5 C4 10 Guardrails and concrete barriers 45 70 70 N/A N/A ! ! ! N/A N/A ! !

Notes : 1. Recommended standard construction hours are Monday to Friday 7 am to 6 pm and Saturday 8 am to 1 pm. Daytime ‘out of hours’ (OoH) is Saturday 1 pm to 6 pm and Sunday 8 am to 6 pm



5.3.2 Discussion

NCA1 2 Residential

For the residential apartment buildings located nearest to the works (which in this instance would be construction of the ramp on the eastern side of Lane Cove Road), the noise predictions indicate that the worst!case LAeq(15minute) daytime construction noise levels of up to 80 dBA are expected at the most affected receivers. Exceedances of the LAeq(15minute) noise goal of up to 16 dBA and 21 dBA are therefore expected at these receivers during the day, and day out of hours.

For works during the evening and night!time periods the worst!case LAeq(15minute) construction noise level are predicted to be up to 71 dBA. The evening and night!time exceedances are 14 dBA to 24 dBA respectively. The sleep disturbance screening criterion is also predicted to be exceeded by up to 22 dBA for these works.

NCA2 2 Commercial

At the commercial garden centre located east of the works next to Lane Cove Road the noise predictions indicate that the worst!case LAeq(15minute) construction noise levels of up to 85 dBA are expected at the most affected receivers. Exceedances of the LAeq(15minute) noise goal of up to 15 dBA are therefore expected at this receiver.

NCA3 2 Commercial

At the commercial building located north of the works next to the M2 motorway the noise predictions indicate that the worst!case LAeq(15minute) construction noise levels of up to 78 dBA are expected at the most affected receivers. Exceedances of the LAeq(15minute) noise goal of up to 8 dBA are therefore expected at these receivers.

NCA4 2 Commercial

At the commercial buildings located south of the works next to the M2 motorway the noise predictions indicate that the worst!case LAeq(15minute) construction noise levels of up to 78 dBA are expected at the most affected receivers. Exceedances of the LAeq(15minute) noise goal of up to 8 dBA are therefore expected at these receivers.

NCA5 2 Commercial

At the commercial buildings located south west of the of the M2 motorway underpass at Lane Cove Road the noise predictions indicate that the worst!case LAeq(15minute) construction noise levels of up to 59 dBA are expected at the most affected receivers. Compliance with the LAeq(15minute) noise goal is therefore expected at this receiver.

5.4 Construction Vibration Assessment

The proposed activities are considered to either contain plant items that are not significantly vibration intensive and/or the separation distance from the nearest receivers is sufficient to mitigate the potential impacts, and as such have not been considered any further in this assessment.

5.5 Construction Ground2borne Noise Assessment

All of the proposed plant items are not considered to have potential to cause adverse ground!borne noise impacts and as such have not been considered in this assessment.



5.6 Construction Mitigation Measures

The expected exceedances are likely to be concerning for surrounding residents and particular effort should be directed towards the implementation of all feasible and reasonable noise mitigation and management strategies.

Examples of mitigation measures which may be considered appropriate for these works are:

• Use of localised acoustic hoarding around all significantly noise generating items of plant. This would be expected to provide between 5 dBA and 10 dBA of additional noise attenuation, if adequately constructed to ensure line!of!sight between all receivers and the construction equipment is broken.

• Planning of the higher Noise Management Level exceedance activities/locations to be undertaken predominantly during the daytime and evening periods, where feasible.

• All out of hours works, where predictions indicate exceedances of the NMLs, would be undertaken in accordance with the conditions of the relevant Environment Protection Licence issued by the EPA.

• Respite periods would be implemented for noise intensive works, e.g. jackhammering and rockbreaking.

• Briefing of the work team to create awareness of the locality of sensitive receivers and the importance of minimising noise emissions, especially during night!time periods.

• Ensuring spoil is placed and not dropped into awaiting trucks.

• Use of less noise!intensive equipment, where feasible and reasonable.

• Non!tonal reversing alarms fitted on construction vehicles.

• Additionally the construction contractor would develop activity specific construction noise impact statements (CNIS) for all proposed out of hours works once detailed construction methodologies are determined. CNISs would provide more accurate construction noise predictions and detail appropriate mitigation measures.

6 OPERATIONAL NOISE

From the information presented in Table 2 it can be seen that the RNP noise targets applicable to this project are external noise levels of daytime LAeq(15hour) 60 dBA and night2time LAeq(9hour) 55 dBA. These traffic noise levels are applicable at the residences opposite the Lane Cove Road Ramp at 1 Fontenoy Road. Additionally, noise levels have been estimated at residences potentially affected distant from the ramp location on the eastern side of Lane Cove Road to the north.

6.1 Noise Modelling

A simple noise model of the Project area was carried out using noise modelling software. The program implements the UK Department of Transport, “Calculation of Road Traffic Noise” (CoRTN 1988) algorithms. The modelling allows for traffic volume and mix, vehicle speed, type of road surface and angle of view. Traffic volumes used in the modelling where provided by AECOM for the year 2011 with and without the ramp, and year 2021 with and without the ramp

The modelling indicates that existing (no ramp) year 2011 LAeq noise levels are typically 69 dBA during the day and 65 dBA during the night at the nearest apartment building at 1 Fontenoy Road. These levels increase by less than 0.1 dB during the day and 0.1 dB during the night as a result of the ramp. For the year 2021, noise levels increase by typically 1 dB due to traffic growth with ‘no ramp’ noise levels of 70 dBA during the day and 66 dBA during the night. The increase in year 2021 as a result of the ramp is less than 0.1 dB during the day and 0.1 dB during the night.



6.1.1 Discussion

The predicted baseline noise levels indicate exceedances of the RNP guideline values. Where noise levels exceed the guideline values the RNP identifies feasible and reasonable mitigation measures in the following order of priority:

i. road design and traffic management

ii. quieter pavement surfaces

iii. in!corridor noise barriers/mounds

iv. at!property treatments or localised barriers/mounds

Furthermore, the RNP notes ‘In assessing feasible and reasonable mitigation measures, an increase of up to 2 dB represents a minor impact that is considered barely perceptible to the average person’.

Given the Project results in negligible increases of up to 0.1 dB in year 2011 and up to 0.1 dB in year 2021, it is not considered feasible and reasonable that mitigation measures need to be implemented.

7 CONCLUSION

Noise and vibration predictions for the construction works associated with the M2 Motorway Lane Cove Road Ramp Project have been undertaken. The predictions indicate that some of the proposed activities are likely to exceed the construction goals causing a potentially significant impact at some locations. Feasible and reasonable mitigation measures should therefore be considered by the construction contractor.

Operational noise has been predicted as a result of the Project, and negligible increases of up to 0.1 dB are predicted for both the years 2011 and 2021.

Appendix A Acoustic Terminology

Page 1 of 1


Typical Noise Indices

This Report makes repeated reference to certain noise level descriptors, in particular the LA10, LA90 and LAeq and LAmax noise levels.

� The LA10 is the A!weighted sound pressure level exceeded 10% of a given measurement period and is utilised normally to characterise typical maximum noise levels.

� The LAeq is essentially the average sound level. It is defined as the steady sound level that contains the same amount of acoustical energy as a given time!varying sound over the same measurement period. The LAeq(15hour) is the measurement parameter used to describe the road traffic noise level over the entire daytime (7.00 am to 10.00 pm) period. The LAeq(9hour) is the measurement parameter used to describe the road traffic noise level over the entire night!time (10.00 pm to 7.00 am) period. Similarly, the LAeq(1hour) is the measurement parameter used to describe the road traffic noise level during the loudest 1!hour period during the daytime or night!time periods.

� The LA90 noise level is the A!weighted sound pressure level exceeded 90% of a given measurement period and is representative of the average minimum background sound level (in the absence of the source under consideration), or simply the “background” level.

� The LAmax noise level is the maximum A!weighted noise level associated with road traffic movements.

Graphical Display of Typical Noise Indices

Typical Noise Levels

The following table presents examples of typical noise levels.

Sound Pressure Level (dBA)

Typical Source Subjective Evaluation

130 120 110

Threshold of pain Heavy rock concert Grinding on steel

Intolerable Extremely noisy

100 90

Loud car horn at 3 m Construction site with pneumatic hammering

Very noisy

80 70

Kerb side of busy street Loud radio or television

Loud

60 50

Department store General Office

Moderate to Quiet

40 30

Inside private office Inside bedroom

Quiet to Very quiet

20 Unoccupied recording studio

Almost silent

A2Weighting or dBA Noise Levels

The overall level of a sound is usually expressed in terms of dBA, which is measured using the “A!weighting” filter incorporated in sound level meters. These filters have a frequency response corresponding approximately to that of human hearing. People’s hearing is most sensitive to sounds at mid frequencies (500 Hz to 4000 Hz), and less sensitive at lower and higher frequencies. Thus, the level of a sound in dBA is a good measure of the “loudness” of that sound. Different sources having the same dBA level generally sound about equally as loud, although the perceived loudness can also be affected by the character of the sound (eg the loudness of human speech and a distant motorbike may be perceived differently, although they are of the same dBA level).

Sensitivity of People to Noise Level Changes

A change of up to 3 dBA in the level of a sound is difficult for most people to detect, whilst a 3 dBA to 5 dBA change corresponds to a small but noticeable change in loudness. A 10 dBA change corresponds to an approximate doubling or halving in loudness.

LA1

LA10

LA90

LAeq

LAmax

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

00:00 05:00 10:00 15:00

Monitoring or Survey Period (minutes)

So

un

d P

ressu

re L

evel (

dB

A)

M2 Lane Cove Road Eastbound On-ramp Modification Environmental Assessment

Appendix F Ecological Impact Assessment

PECOLO

PROPOSEOGICAL IMED LANE

UP

Ecologi

PO Box www.c

MPACT ASCOVE RA

PGRADE P

ical Impac

For

AECO

July 20

Fina

2474, Carlincumberlande

SSESSMEAMP, AS PPROJECT

ct Assess

:

OM

012

al

ngford Court ecology.com

ENT FOR PART OF TT

ment

2118

m.au

THE THE M2

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Report No. 12020RP1

The preparation of this report has been in accordance with the brief provided by the Client and has

relied upon the data and results collected at or under the times and conditions specified in the report.

All findings, conclusions or recommendations contained within the report are based only on the

aforementioned circumstances. The report has been prepared for use by the Client and no

responsibility for its use by other parties is accepted by Cumberland Ecology.

Revision Date Issued Reviewed by Approved by Date Approved Revision Type

1 18.05.12 SH SH 18.05.12 Draft 2 29.05.12 SH SH 29.05.12 Final Draft 3 25.07.12 SH SH 25.07.12 Final

Approved by: Sam Holliday

Position: Senior Project Manager

Signed:

Date: 25 July, 2012

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT i

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Table Of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Proposal Description 1.1

1.2 Subject Site Description 1.2

1.3 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines 1.3

1.3.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 1.3

1.3.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

1.3

1.3.3 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 1.3

1.4 Terms and Abbreviations 1.4

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Literature Review and Database Analysis 2.1

2.2 Field Surveys 2.2

2.2.1 Vegetation and Flora Surveys 2.2

2.2.2 Habitat Assessment 2.3

2.2.3 Targeted Fauna Surveys 2.3

2.3 Survey Limitations 2.6

3 RESULTS

3.1 Vegetation Communities 3.1

3.1.1 Weeds and Exotics 3.1

3.1.2 Urban Exotic / Native 3.4

3.1.3 Artificial Wetlands 3.6

3.2 Flora 3.9

3.2.1 Threatened Flora Species 3.9

3.2.2 Weeds 3.9

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT ii

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Table Of Contents (Cont'd)

3.3 Fauna 3.10

3.3.1 Threatened Fauna Species 3.10

3.3.2 Fauna Habitat Assessment 3.10

3.3.3 Targeted Fauna Surveys 3.14

4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

4.1 Direct Impacts 4.1

4.1.1 Impacts on Vegetation Communities 4.1

4.1.2 Impacts on Flora 4.2

4.1.3 Impacts on Fauna 4.2

4.2 Indirect Impacts 4.4

4.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation 4.4

4.2.2 Edge Effects 4.4

4.2.3 Alteration to Hydrological Regimes 4.5

4.2.4 Increased Sedimentation and Erosion 4.5

5 AMELIORATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Avoidance Measures 5.1

5.2 Mitigation Measures 5.2

5.3 Offset Measures 5.3

6 CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

List of Photographs

3.1 Open grassy areas (note the presence of noxious weed species Ipomea indica with Pennesitum clandestinum) 3.2

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT iii

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

List of Photographs

3.2 Weeds and Exotics: Fillslope domainted by Lantana 3.3

3.3 Weeds and Exotics: dense thickets of Privet and Lantana along drainage lines 3.4

3.4 Urban Exotic / Native: Fillslope containing a mixture of clay and sandstone species Eucaltyptus paniculata, Angophora costata, Corymbia gummifera and Kunzea ambigua. 3.5

3.5 Urban Exotic / Native: Fillslope containing largely sandstone species Allocasusrina littoralis, Acacia floribunda, Kunzea ambigua, Dodenaea triquetra 3.6

3.6 Artificial Wetland: contaning macrophytes Eleocahris sphacelata and Phragmites australis 3.7

3.7 Basin 1 which contains suitable Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat 3.11

3.8 Cylindrical pipe culvert beneath access road to waste facility with possible but highly unlikely habitat for the Eastern Bentwing Bat 3.14

3.9 Box culvert beneath M2 Motorway with possible but highly unlikely habitat for the Eastern Bentwing Bat 3.14

List of Figures

1.1 Location of the subject site 1.5

2.1 Survey locations on the subject site 2.5

3.1 Vegetation communities of the subject site 3.8

3.2 Threatened Flora within the Locality 3.16

3.3 Threatened Fauna within the Locality 3.17

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT iv

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

List of Tables

A.1 Flora Species Recorded within Quadrats on the Subject Site A.1

A.2 Flora Species Recorded in the Detention Basins on the Subject Site A.7

B.1 Fauna Species Recorded on the Subject Site B.1

C.1 Flora Likelihood of Occurrence C.1

D.1 Fauna Likelihood of Occurrence D.1

Table Of Appendices

A. FLORA SPECIES RECORDED ON SUBJECT SITE

B. FAUNA SPECIES RECORDED ON SUBJECT SITE

C. FLORA LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE TABLE

D. FAUNA LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE TABLE

E. ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE

E.1 Green and Golden Bell Frog E.1

E.2 Eastern Bentwing Bat E.3

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT S.1

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Executive Summary

S1 Introduction

This working paper describes an ecological assessment of the proposed Lane Cove Road on ramp. The proposal includes the construction and operation of a new eastbound on ramp from Lane Cove Road to the eastbound carriageway of the M2 Motorway. The proposal is generally accommodated within the motorway corridor lease boundary.

Cumberland Ecology has been engaged by AECOM to undertake an Ecological Impact Assessment of the proposed Lane Cove Road On-Ramp to the M2 Motorway. The M2 Upgrade Project was approved by the Minister for Planning under the now repealed Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) on 21 October 2010. RMS, in conjunction with Transurban, are proposing to modify the M2 Upgrade Project approval to include the provision of a new eastbound on-ramp from Lane Cove Road to the M2 Motorway.

The objectives of this report are to present the findings of an ecological investigation of the subject site and to assess the impacts of the Project on current biodiversity values of the subject site including threatened species, populations and ecological communities protected under State and Commonwealth legislation.

The subject site is located on the northern edge of the M2 Motorway between Lane Cove Road and Wicks Road. The M2 Motorway passes through the urban development of the north-western suburbs of Sydney. Natural vegetation of the region is preserved in National Park or Reserves and also in isolated remnant stands within the adjoining residential areas.

S2 Methodology

A three hour site inspection was conducted on 24 February 2012 to survey vegetation types, assess fauna habitat and to determine any constraints within the subject site.

Targeted fauna surveys for the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) and threatened microbats, in particular, the Eastern Bentwing Bat (Miniopterus orianae oceanensis, formerly Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis), were carried out on 28 and 29 March 2012 and on 2 and 4 April 2012.

S3 Results

The vegetation on the subject site shows signs of severe disturbance from clearing, likely due from the initial construction of the M2 Motorway. The majority of the site is in a state of regrowth dominated by exotic and invasive species. This is considered likely to be the result of placement of fill material and soil or the planting of non-endemic natives and exotics for

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT S.2

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

soil stabilisation. No native vegetation community is present within the subject site, therefore there are no C/EECs listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act present.

S4 Impact Assessment

Potential impacts of the modification to the approved works include the following:

Permanent clearing of approximately 1.8 ha of vegetation, including 0.4 ha classified as Urban Exotic/Native and 1.4 ha of Weeds and Exotics;

Minor loss of potential habitat for threatened species, primarily the Green and Golden Bell Frog and marginal potential habitat for the Eastern Bentwing Bat; and

Potential for indirect impacts such as the spread of exotic species, run-off into/sedimentation of drainage lines and temporary light and noise impacts to fauna during construction.

Assessments of Significance (7-Part Tests) have been conducted for the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Eastern Bentwing Bat. These determine that no signficant impact is likely to occur on either of these species as a result of the development.

S5 Conclusion

No threatened ecological communities are present on the site and the existing vegetation no longer represents a native vegetation unit

One threatened fauna species, the Eastern Bentwing Bat was recorded foraging within the subject site but the subject site is unlikely to provide roosting habitat for this species. Suitable habitat also occurs for the Green and Golden Bell Frog but this species is considered to have a low chance of occurrence here. This is due to the lack of records during survey and in the vicinity of the subject site within the last 15 years.

The 7 Part Tests have concluded that no significant impact is likely to occur on any threatened fauna as a result of the Project. For this reason, the preparation of a Species Impact Statement or Referral to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, under the EPBC Act is not required.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT 1.1

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Chapter 1

Introduction

Cumberland Ecology has been engaged by AECOM, on behalf of the Transurban and the Roads and Maritime Service (RMS), to undertake an Ecological Impact Assessment of the proposed Lane Cove Road On-Ramp (the Proposal), as a modification to the M2 Upgrade Project. The extent of physical works, as part of the Proposal, is referred to as the ‘subject site’. The Ecological Impact Assessment will form part of an Environmental Assessment (EA) being prepared by AECOM to support an application for modification to a Part 3A planning approval under section 75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

The objectives of this report are to present the findings of an ecological investigation of the subject site and to assess the impacts of the Project on current biodiversity values of the subject site including threatened species, populations and ecological communities protected under State and Commonwealth legislation.

1.1 Proposal Description

RMS proposes to construct and operate a new eastbound on-ramp from Lane Cove Road to the M2 Motorway. Key features of the proposal are:

New on-ramp from the southbound carriageway of Lane Cove Road to the eastbound carriageway of the M2 Motorway;

Widening of the eastbound carriageway of the M2 Motorway by one additional lane from the new on-ramp extending to the beginning of the existing eastbound Delhi Road off-ramp;

Widening of the Wicks Road bridge;

New toll point associated with the on-ramp; and

Additional traffic management systems (including an over-height detection system using existing Variable Message Signage and CCTV coverage of the new on-ramp).


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

1.2 Subject Site Description

The subject site refers to the area that would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposal. The subject site includes the area of the new onramp and associated infrastructure, such as stormwater detention basins, and is located on the northern edge of the M2 Motorway between Lane Cove Road and Wicks Road as shown in Figure 1.1. The vegetation in the subject site forms a long linear patch that follows the eastbound carriageway of the M2 Motorway, bordering the Eden Garden Centre, parts of Lane Cove National Park and a waste facility. The subject site ranges from approximately 10 to 90 metres in width and is approximately 740 metres in length. The total area of the subject site is 3.83 hectares.

i. Regional context

The M2 Motorway is located within the the Sydney Basin Bioregion and traverses through the Cumberland and Pittwater sub-catchments of the Hawkesbury-Nepean and Sydney Metro Catchment Management Authorities (CMA). The M2 Motorway passes through the urban development of the north-western suburbs of Sydney and the growing commercial area around Macquarie Shopping Centre, University and Business Park.

The M2 Motorway has built elements, such as noise walls, dominating most of the M2 corridor as it travels through a highly populated area of metropolitan Sydney. Vegetation within the M2 corridor is a mixture of remnant stands of vegetation, re-vegetation works that were undertaken as part of the original development and weeds. Natural vegetation of the region is preserved in National Park or Reserves and also in isolated remnant stands within the adjoining residential areas.

ii. Geology, topography and soils

Major geological formations of the M2 corridor are Wianamatta Group, Hawkesbury Sandstone and overlying Ashfield Shale. The Ashfield Shale relief occurs towards the west of the M2 Motorway and is generally undulating with rounded ridges and hill crests. The Hawkesbury Sandstone relief occurs towards the east of the M2 Motorway and is fairly rugged with rolling to very steep hills with steep or benched side slopes.

The topography varies across the site from flat and gentle sloping land to short steep hills, probably a result of dumping excess fill. The northern portion of the subject site slopes generally in a south western direction with the lower point being adjacent to the M2 Motorway. It also slopes in a south easterly direction toward Culvert B (shown in Figure 2.1). The southern portion of the subject site has more gentle undulation.

The subject site is located on the border of the Lucas Heights Landscape and the Hawkesbury Landscape. The characteristics of these soil landscapes are:

The Lucas Heights Landscape on the Mittagong Formation. Soils are commonly less than one metre in depth with a high soil erosion hazard; and


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

The Hawkesbury Landscape. Soils are usually within 0.5 metres depth and in combination with the steep terrain have great erosion hazard.

1.3 Relevant Legislation and Guidelines

1.3.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The EP&A Act is the overarching planning legislation in NSW that provides for the creation of planning instruments that guide land use. The Act also provides for the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants. This includes threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats of biodiversity values, as listed in the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act). The protection of the environment is addressed in Section 5A (Significant effect on species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats) and under Part 4 (Development Assessment) or Part 5 (Environmental Assessment) of the Act.

1.3.2 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the Australian Government's central piece of environmental legislation. It provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places — defined in the EPBC Act as Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). Under the EPBC Act, any action (which includes a development, project or activity) that is considered likely to have a significant impact on MNES (including nationally threatened ecological communities and species, and listed migratory species) must be referred to the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the minister). The purpose of the referral is to allow a decision to be made about whether an action requires approval on a Commonwealth level, known as a “controlled action”. If an action is declared a “controlled action”, then Commonwealth approval is required.

1.3.3 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

In NSW, the key piece of legislation relating to the protection and management of biodiversity and threatened species is the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). The purpose of the TSC Act is to:

Conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable development;

Prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities;

Protect the critical habitat of those species, populations and ecological communities that are endangered;


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities;

Ensure that the impact of any action affecting threatened species, populations and ecological communities is properly assessed; and

Encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities through co-operative management.

The TSC Act, through Part 8A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) prohibits the harming, picking, possessing, buying or selling of individual threatened species. The Act contains a prohibition against the damage of habitat and contains provisions to protect endangered populations and threatened ecological communities.

1.4 Terms and Abbreviations

Terminology used within this report is summarised below:

CMA Catchment Management Authority

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

LGA Local Government Area of Ryde

Locality Land within 10 km radius of the approximate centre of the subject site

OEH Office of Environment and Heritage (formerly DECCW - Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water)

SEWPaC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Subject site The site of the proposed on-ramp construction works and operation being that shown in Figure 1.1.

Study area The areas surveyed for the Ecological Impact Assessment of this project.

Threatened species Includes those species that are listed under the EPBC Act, FM Act, and TSC Act

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Chapter 2

Methodology

This chapter presents the assessment approach and methodology utilised in preparing this Ecological Impact Assessment. This includes database analysis, literature review and consideration of previous studies completed on the M2 Motorway, as well as detailed field surveys.

2.1 Literature Review and Database Analysis

Database analysis was conducted for the locality using the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Atlas of NSW Wildlife Database and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool. The Atlas search generated records for threatened species listed under the TSC Act within a 10 km radius of the subject site. The Protected Matters search tool generated a list of potentially occurring flora, fauna and ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act within a 10 km radius of the subject site. Figure 2.2 shows threatened fauna within the locality, and Figure 2.3 shows threatened flora.

A review of available flora and fauna studies carried out in the locality was also conducted and included the following documents:

(AECOM, 2010) M2 Upgrade Volume 1 Environmental Assessment, Report prepared for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority;

AECOM (2010) M2 Upgrade Flora and Fauna Assessment, Technical Paper;

AECOM (2010) M2 Upgrade Project, Referral under the EPBC Act;

(Cumberland Ecology, 2011a) M2 Upgrade Project, Bat Survey Report

(Cumberland Ecology, 2011b) M2 Upgrade Project, Biodiversity Offset Strategy.

The results of the analysis of both databases and the document reviews were used to inform threatened species searches during field surveys. The number and age of records of threatened species recorded within the locality was used to assess the likelihood of occurrence of threatened species within the subject site to assist on-ground surveys targeting threatened species known from or with the potential to occur in the locality.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

2.2 Field Surveys

A three hour site inspection was conducted on 24 February 2012 by personnel from Cumberland Ecology to survey vegetation types, fauna habitat values and any constraints within the subject site. The initial survey represented six person hours on site. Targeted fauna surveys were carried out on 28 and 29 March 2012 and on 2 and 4 April 2012, and totalled eight person hours. Additional surveys were also conducted in May, including an inspection of several culverts for the presence of microbats on 16 May, totalling two person hours of survey and a detailed vegetation survey on 21 May 2012, which resulted in eight person hours of survey. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Guidelines for Development and Activities (Working Draft) (DEC (NSW) 2004).

2.2.1 Vegetation and Flora Surveys

The vegetation within the subject site was surveyed on 21 May 2012 to obtain an overview of the nature and distribution of the vegetation of the subject site. Vegetation sampling conducted within the subject site included:

Quadrat sampling (20m x 20m) to obtain information on species composition and community structure;

Random meander survey to detect additional flora species not recorded during quadrat sampling; and

Threatened species searches for threatened flora previously recorded from the LGA.

A total of three quadrats were sampled during the flora survey. The locations of flora quadrats were aimed at representing the best patches of vegetation within the site and are shown in Figure 2.1. The process of quadrat sampling included the following:

Identifying and recording all vascular flora species present in each strata within the plot or directly adjacent to the plot;

Assigning a cover-abundance value to each species recorded within the plot, using a modified Braun-Blanquet scoring system, to reflect their relative cover and abundance in the plot; and

Recording details about vegetation structure such as percentage foliage cover and height of each strata.

All vascular plants recorded or collected were identified using keys and nomenclature provided in Harden (Harden, 1990-1993). Plants that could not be identified to species level were identified to genus level. Where known, taxonomic and nomenclatural changes have been incorporated into the results, as derived from PlantNet (Botanic Gardens Trust, 2012).


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Plant communities were described based on the dominant species and structure using the community descriptions provided in (DECCW (NSW), 2009).

2.2.2 Habitat Assessment

The fauna habitat assessment included consideration of important indicators of habitat condition and complexity, including the occurrence of microhabitats such as tree hollows, fallen logs, bush rock and wetland areas such as creeks and soaks. Structural features considered included the nature and extent of the understorey and ground stratum and extent of canopy. Tree hollows were used as a general indication of habitat quality for arboreal fauna, hollow dwelling birds and bats. Tree hollows observed during surveys were noted and the general vegetation condition and tree maturity was used to predict whether trees on site were likely to contain hollows. Potential man-made microbat habitat features such as culverts, pipes and bridges were identified, and their suitability as microbat habitat assessed. Opportunistic observations of fauna were also noted and recorded.

2.2.3 Targeted Fauna Surveys

Based on the results of the desktop assessment, and fauna habitat assessments conducted during surveys of the subject site, a small number of threatened fauna species were identified as having potential (albeit minimal) to occur. For this reason, targeted surveys for Green and Golden Bell Frogs and several threatened microchiropteran bats species were conducted, as described below.

i. Amphibians

Targeted surveys for the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea), which is listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and Vulnerable under EPBC Act were conducted in Stormwater Detention Basins. The two basins surveyed as part of this study are located on the northern side of the M2 Motorway, Macquarie Park, NSW. Basin 1 is located adjacent to the Eden Gardens (56 H, 327248.65 m E, 6260381.22 m S) and Basin 2 is located near the Wicks Road Bridge (56 H, 327302.00 m E, 6260103.00 m S) as shown on Figure 2.1.

Surveys were undertaken in accordance with both the Commonwealth SEWPaC Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs (DEWHA, 2010) and the OEH Threatened Species Survey and Assessment Guidelines for Amphibians (DECC, 2009). These guidelines recommend a minimum of four survey nights, with a minimum of one survey hour per night.

Transects were conducted around Basins 1 and 2 approximately one hour after sunset on each survey night (see 2.2 above) for a total of two person hours. Night surveys consisted of spotlighting and frog call imitations. Spotlighting was conducted around the edge of the basin and scanning across the water to detect frogs amongst vegetation within the basin. Opportunistic tadpole searches were also conducted during spotlighting.

Green and Golden Bell Frog call imitations were conducted for approximately one minute from several locations around the pond. Approximately one minute was spent listening for call responses following the cessation of call imitations.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Frog species present were determined by frog observations, frog calls, and tadpole and spawn observations. Weather conditions at the time of the surveys were suitable for survey, following months of heavy rain. Rainy conditions were observed on the 28 March 2012 with approximately 15 mm of rain falling across the area. All other nights were dry and warm.

Targeted survey for the threatened Red-crowned toadlet was not undertaken as the subject site does not contain suitable sandstone habitat.

ii. Bats

On the 29 March 2012 and 2 April 2012, an Anabat recorder was activated and held while traversing the site. The calls were analysed through the software AnalookW for Bat Call Analysis, V3.8m, Chris Corben (9 Nov 2010) and identified using the key in (Pennay et al., 2004). Additionally, inspections took place of all man-made features considered to contain suitable habitat by the habitat assessment.

I:\...

\120

20\F

igur

es\R

epor

t Fig

ures

_201

2070

2\

Figure 2.1. Survey Locations on the Subject Site

Coordinate System: MGA Zone 56 (GDA 94)

Grid

Nor

th

Survey LocationsLegend

Flora QuadratCulvert

Basin

Development Footprint

Subject Site

M2 Motorway Lease Boundary

Image Source:Nearmap Image dated: 26/04/2012

50 0 50 100 150 200 m


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

2.3 Survey Limitations

At the time of the flora survey periods, the weather conditions had been favourable for plant growth and production of features required for identification of most flora species. Some specimens were not able to be identified to the species level and have therefore been tentatively assigned to the most probable genus. Most of these are in their juvenile stage (seedlings/saplings) and/or are sterile specimens (without flowers or spores), as identification of flora species is largely dependent on the variation exhibited by the reproductive structures. Nevertheless, it is considered that the subject site has been adequately sampled and that the surveys recorded the majority of the floral biodiversity present.

The fauna surveys are limited in that they are a “snapshot” investigation in time and only recorded the fauna that were active during the time of the surveys. The data produced by the surveys is intended to be indicative of the types of species that could occur and not an absolute census of all flora and fauna species of the subject site. It is likely that additional species would be recorded with continued field sampling in the subject site. Nonetheless, the results obtained are comparable to those from previous surveys of adjoining lands and database records for the locality. A precautionary approach was used to assume presence of some species (particularly threatened species) where the presence of suitable habitat was recorded.

It is considered that the survey represents an adequate baseline of flora and fauna data for the subject site. Although it is impossible to record the entirety of the flora species present, it is considered that the surveys were comprehensive enough for the majority of species present to have been recorded, including threatened species. Cumberland Ecology is satisfied that conservation significance of the flora and fauna, condition and viability of vegetation communities and likely impacts of the Project on ecology has been satisfactorily assessed.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Chapter 3

Results

This section presents the results of the site inspections and field surveys conducted in 2012 within the subject site, with particular focus on threatened flora and fauna species and ecological communities listed under the TSC Act and/or the EPBC Act. Lists of flora and fauna recorded within the subject site during the surveys are provided in Appendices A and B respectively.

3.1 Vegetation Communities

The vegetation on the subject site shows signs of severe disturbance from clearing, likely due from the initial construction of the M2 Motorway. The majority of the site is in a state of regrowth dominated by exotic and invasive species. This is considered likely to be the result of the past placement of fill material and soil from alternative locations, or the planting of non-endemic natives and exotics for soil stabilisation. No native vegetation community is present within the subject site, therefore there are no C/EECs listed under the TSC Act or the EPBC Act present.

Three vegetation communities were recorded on the subject site. These are:

Weeds and Exotics;

Urban Exotic / Native; and

Artificial Wetlands.

These are explained in more detail below.

3.1.1 Weeds and Exotics

Areas mapped as weeds and exotics vary in structure from open vegetation with scattered native and non native trees with exotic grasses to dense weedy thickets. These areas do not resemble any known native vegetation community and are dominated by weeds and non-endemic native species. This community can be distinguished from “urban exotic / native” by a low proportion of native species.

Open grassy areas contain scattered trees of Eucalyptus resignifera (Red Mahogany) Corymbia citridora, (Lemon-scented Gum), Eucalyptus grandis (Flooded Gum), Pinus radiata (Pine Tree) and Cinnomomum camphora (Camphor Laurel). The understorey is dominated


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

by exotic grasses, herbs and vines including: Pennesistum clandistinum (Kikuyu), Chloris gayana (Rhodes Grass), Ipomea indica (Morning Glory), Trifolium repens (Clover), Paspalum dilatatum (Paspalum), Briza subaristata, Stenotaphrum secundatum (Buffalo Grass), Setaria parviflora (Pigeon Grass), Verbena bonariensis (Verbena), Senecio madagascariensis (Fireweed), Conyza bonariensis (Fleabane), Hypochaeris radicata (Flatweed) (see Photograph 3.1).

Photograph 3.1 Open grassy areas (note the presence of noxious weed species Ipomea indica with Pennesitum clandestinum)


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Photograph 3.2 Weeds and Exotics: Fillslope domainted by Lantana

Weedy regrowth areas generally did not contain canopy trees or groundcovers due to dense thickets of Ligustrum lucidum (Large-leaved Privet), Ligustrum sinensis (Small-leaved Privet) and Lantana camara (Lantana) (see Photograph 3.3 below).


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Photograph 3.3 Weeds and Exotics: dense thickets of Privet and Lantana along drainage lines

3.1.2 Urban Exotic / Native

Areas mapped as urban exotic/native were generally confined to landscaped batters of detention basins and the motorway, as well as some areas of fill which contained a higher proportion of native species. Despite this fact, the species composition of fill areas dominated by native species were not considered to be consistent with any known vegetation community. The composition of species is also likely to be related to soil provenance as some areas contained species typically found on sandstone soils while other areas contained species typically found on clay soils. This vegetation class can be distinguished from “weeds and exotics” by a higher proportion of native and non-endemic species.

Common species recorded in this community include: Eucalyptus punctata, Angophora costata (Smoothed-barked Apple) Eucalyptus maculata, Eucalyptus pilularis, Allocasuarina littoralis (Black Sheoak), Acacia spp. Banksia ericifolia, Kunzea ambigua, Dodenaea triquetra, Ricinus communis, Leptospermum spp., Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum), Sida rhombifolia (Paddy’s Lucerne), Gennista sp., Modiola caroliniana, Centella, Pennesitum clandestinum, Cloris gayana, Imperata cyclindrica (Bladey Grass), Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Medow Grass), Echinochloa spp., and Ehrharta erecta (Panic Veldt Grass) (see Photographs 3.4 and 3.5 below).


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Photograph 3.4 Urban Exotic / Native: Fillslope containing a mixture of clay

and sandstone species Eucaltyptus paniculata, Angophora costata, Corymbia gummifera and Kunzea ambigua.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Photograph 3.5 Urban Exotic / Native: Fillslope containing largely sandstone

species Allocasusrina littoralis, Acacia floribunda, Kunzea ambigua, Dodenaea triquetra

3.1.3 Artificial Wetlands

This vegetation community is associated with two constructed stormwater detention basins within the M2 Motorway corridor. Common species recorded in this community include: Casuarina glauca (Swamp Oak) Eleocharis sphacelata, Phragmites australis, Lomandra longifolia (Spiny Matrush), Chloris gayana (Rhodes Grass), Eragrostis curvula (African Lovegrass) and Plantago lanceolata (Lambs Tongue) (see Photograph 3.6).


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Photograph 3.6 Artificial Wetland: contaning macrophytes Eleocahris sphacelata and Phragmites australis

Despite the presence of native plant species, this vegetation cannot be classified as a native community as it occurs within a wholly artifical stormwater detention basin. Therefore it does not conform to any endangered ecological community listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

3.2 Flora

3.2.1 Threatened Flora Species

Approximately 156 flora species including 43 native and 113 exotic species were recorded from incidental detections across the subject site and within quadrats. No threatened flora species listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act were detected. The likelihood of occurrence of fourty threatened flora species listed under the TSC Act and/or the EPBC Act having the potential to be present within the locality has been assessed and is provided in Appendix C. The locations of these threatened species are shown in Figure 3.2.

The likelihood of a species occurring has been determined using the following definitions:

Present: The species was recorded within the subject land during the field survey;

Likely: The species was not recorded within the subject land during the field survey but is known to occur within the surrounding area and habitat of suitable quality exists within the subject land;

Possible: The species was not recorded within the subject land during the field survey but is known to occur in the wider region. Habitat was identified for the species within the subject land during field survey; however it is marginal, fragmented and/or small in size or degraded; and

Unlikely: The species was not recorded within the subject land during field survey. The species is unlikely to occur in the wider region and due to a lack of, or extremely poor quality habitat on the subject land, the species is not expected to occur within the study area.

Most threatened flora species were considered unlikely to occur within the subject site. Three threatened species, Epacris purpurascens var. Purpurascens, Acacia bynoeana and Haloragodendron lucasii, which are known from the locality, were assessed as having low likelihood of occurrence, due largely to the severe degradation of the subject site. Surveys also failed to locate any of these species. The soil disturbance, fill and weed invasion is likely to have destroyed any soil-stored seed bank that may have existed for these species on the subject site. Consequently, no Assessment of Significance was considered warranted for these species.

3.2.2 Weeds

The majority of the site contains highly invasive environmental weeds and declared noxious weeds under the Noxious Weed Act 1993. Noxious Weeds recorded on the site include, but are not limited to: Bitou Bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera), Ligustrum lucidum (Large-leaved Privet), Olea europaea ssp africana (African Olive), Cortaderia sp. (Pampas Grass), Lanatana camara (Lantana), Ricinus communis (Castor Oil Plant) and Cardiospermum grandiflorum (Balloon Vine). Lantana and Blackberry are further classified as Weeds of National Significance (WONS) under the National Weeds Strategy.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

3.3 Fauna

3.3.1 Threatened Fauna Species

No threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act were detected. The likelihood of occurrence of fourty-nine threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act and/or the EPBC Act having the potential to be present within the locality has been assessed and is provided in Appendix C. The locations of these threatened species are shown in Figure 3.3. Most threatened fauna species were considered unlikely to occur within the subject site based on the results of the fauna habitat assessment (section 3.3.2 below).

3.3.2 Fauna Habitat Assessment

Although the vegetation is highly disturbed, parts of the site may provide habitat for non-threatened fauna species and to a lesser extent threatened fauna species. There are no hollow bearing trees within the subject site, thus there is no suitable roosting or nesting habitat for species requiring hollows. Tree and shrub species are likely to provide foraging resources for nectivorous species such as birds and arboreal mammals. Dense Lantana and Privet thickets present are likely to support local populations of the Common Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus), as have been found frequently within similar disturbed habitats throughout the M2 Upgrade Project. There are no other microhabitat features present such as areas of bushrock, fallen logs and areas of leaf litter.

Despite the sparse regrowth nature of the native and exotic vegetation that occurs on the subject site, the trees and shrubs present are likely to provide some foraging habitat for a range of fauna species. The majority of species likely to frequent the subject site are common, urban associated birds, although a small number of threatened fauna may also visit the site, on occasion. Due to the limited resources available, this is likely to present opportunistic foraging habitat for nectivorous species such as the Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) and Regent Honeyeater (Xanthomyza phrygia), which are both considered to utilise flowering street trees and garden plants while transient through the Sydney area. The Swift Parrot is a migratory species and the Regent Honeyeater is nomadic, and therefore neither species would reside on the subject site, or rely on the habitats present for their survival.

Two detention basins containing Bullrush (Typha sp.) and Common Reed (Phragmities australis) were observed during the site inspection in February 2012 as shown in Photograph 3.3. These basins provide suitable habitat for the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) which is listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Overwintering habitat, in the form of rocks and other debris, is present around both basins.

Basin 1 presents suitable foraging, breeding and shelter habitat for Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) (see Photograph 3.7). The basin is large, broad and relatively shallow with an extensive reed bed with Bullrush and Common Reed occupying the eastern half. The western half of the basin is shallow and open with an abundance of grasses and wetland plants such as Juncus sp. Water quality in Basin 1 appears to be fair to good with little visible pollution and turbidity and an abundance of invertebrates. The surrounding vegetation


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

on the western side is an open shrubby mixture of Wattle (Acacia spp.), Black She-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis) and occasional exotic weed species such as Lantana (Lantana camara). The eastern side of the area surrounding Basin 1 is a dense mix of shrubby vegetation consisting of exotics such as Privet (Ligustrum spp.) and Lantana.

Photograph 3.7 Basin 1 which contains suitable Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat

Basin 2 presents marginally suitable habitat for the Green and Golden Bell Frog. This basin is much smaller than Basin 1 and is entirely overgrown with Eleocharis sp. with no areas of open water. The vegetation surrounding the basin is largely exotic consisting of mostly Privet and Lantana and occasionally wattle species which are overgrown with exotic climbers such as Morning Glory (Ipomoea purpurea). The area surrounding the basin is largely modified and cleared.

Six culverts are located on the subject site. Two types of concrete culverts are present; small cyclindrical pipe constructions and box shaped culverts. Although it is possible that these culverts could provide potential roosting habitat for the Eastern Bentwing Bat (Miniopterus orianae oceanensis, formerly Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis (Churchill, 2008)), a cave-dwelling microchiropteran bat which is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act, they are considered highly unlikely to do so. The insides of the pipe culverts have a smooth cement surface, limiting opportunities for microbats to roost in any potential crevices. Additionally their small size would leave any roosting bats open to predation from urban wildlife such as foxes and cats. The box culverts do contain some crevices inside but generally they are filled with vegetation and mud, limiting opportunities for roosting.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Both types of culverts are considered to provide marginal potential habitat, at best for the Eastern Bentwing Bat, and if bats were to occur, they would be limited to single roosting opportunities for individuals or a small number of individuals as occasional 'satellite roosts' and are unlikely to be important or permanent roost sites.

One bridge, located at Wicks Rd, will require modification as part of the proposal. This bridge was considered by the habitat assessment as unlikely to support microbat roosting, as the bridge is subject to constant noise and light pollution, and regular vehicular traffic. The bridge is of the same type as other bridges along the motorway which have previously been surveyed for microbat activity. Previous surveys (Cumberland Ecology, 2011a) found no evidence of bat roosting, and that the structure of the bridges was unsuitable for microbat roosting.

Other culverts under the M2 Motorway have been found to contain roosting Eastern Bentwing Bats, although the construction of these culverts have included expansion joints with sufficient space for small clusters of bats to reside. The culverts with roosting bats are also much larger, and are long archway culverts with openings at both ends.

Vegetated areas and the detention basins are likely to provide foraging opportunities for a number of other threatened insectivorous microchiropteran bats (mircobats), including Yellow-bellied Sheathtail bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris) and Eastern Freetail bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis). Due to the lack of roosting habitat, it is not likely that these microbats frequent the subject site.

Potential impacts to threatened fauna as a result of the Project are discussed in the following chapter.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Photograph 3.8 Cylindrical pipe culvert beneath access road to waste facility with possible but highly unlikely habitat for the Eastern Bentwing Bat

Photograph 3.9 Box culvert beneath M2 Motorway with possible but highly

unlikely habitat for the Eastern Bentwing Bat

3.3.3 Targeted Fauna Surveys

i. Amphibians

The Green and Golden Bell Frog was not detected at either basin during the course of the surveys. However, common frog species were detected in both basins. The Common Eastern Froglet (Crinia signifera), Striped Marsh Frog (Limnodynastes peronii) and Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog (Litoria fallax) were present at Basin 1 and Striped Marsh Frog and Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog were present at Basin 2 (see Basin locations on Figure 2.1). Basin 1 had a large number of Common Eastern Froglet heard calling on each survey night and a small number were seen around the Basin’s edge. A large number of Striped Marsh Frog were heard calling on the first two survey nights from both Basins. Several Eastern Dwarf Tree Frogs were seen and heard from Basin 1 on all survey nights and a single individual was seen at Basin 2. Tadpoles of Common Eastern Froglet, Striped Marsh Frog and Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog were present in Basin 1. Spawn of Striped Marsh Frog was also detected in Basin 1.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

ii. Bats

During the anabat survey of the subject site, one bat call was positively identified as the Eastern Bentwing Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis). Due to the lack of numerous calls from this species (which would imply that a roost site was close by) it is likely that this species roosts in the general area and occasionally forages over the basins on site. This species is known to commonly forage around detention basins and creeks in the general vicinity.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Chapter 4

Impact Assessment

The proposal involves the construction and operation of a new eastbound on-ramp from Lane Cove Road to the M2 Motorway as a modification to the approved M2 Upgrade Project, which is currently under construction. The vegetation of the subject site is highly degraded, consisting of exotic and noxious species and non-local native plants that have grown from dumped fill that occurs throughout much of the subject site.

No threatened ecological communities, as listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act have been identified on the subject site and very limited habitat for threatened flora and fauna species has been identified. This is mostly restricted to an area of potential habitat for Green and Golden Bell Frogs in the form of two sediment and stormwater detention basins on the edge of the motorway. There is also marginal foraging habitat for a small number of threatened birds and microchiropteran bat species; including the Eastern Bentwing Bat, a cave-dwelling bat species that is known to roost (as a winter or satellite roost) in several of the larger culverts along the M2.

Potential impacts of the modification to the approved works include the following:

Permanent clearing of approximately 1.8ha of vegetation, including 0.4 hectares classified as Urban Exotic/Native and 1.4 hectares of Weeds and Exotics;

Minor loss of potential habitat for the Green and Golden Bell Frog;

Minor loss of marginal potential habitat for wide-ranging threatened fauna, primarily the Eastern Bentwing Bat; and

Potential for indirect impacts such as the spread of exotic species, run-off into / sedimentation of drainage lines and temporary light and noise impacts to fauna during construction.

Impacts from the proposed Project are discussed in more detail below.

4.1 Direct Impacts

4.1.1 Impacts on Vegetation Communities

The Proposal will result in the permanent clearing of approximately 1.8ha of vegetation, including 0.4 hectares classified as Urban Exotic/Native and 1.4 hectares of Weeds and


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Exotics. The vegetation on the subject site shows signs of severe disturbance from clearing, likely due from the initial construction of the M2 Motorway. The majority of the subject site is dominated by exotic and invasive species and no longer represents a native vegetation unit. No threatened ecological communities were present on the subject site. Therefore the proposed development modification would have no significant impacts upon TSC Act or EPBC Act listed threatened ecological communities (TECs) or locally significant vegetation communities.

4.1.2 Impacts on Flora

No threatened flora species were detected on the subject site or are considered likely to occur. Although several threatened flora species have been recorded from the locality, due to the highly degraded nature of the subject site and the very high level of weed invasion, it is considered that these species do not have suitable habitat on the subject site and are unlikely to occur.

The proposed development modification is therefore not considered likely to have a significant impact on threatened flora species.

4.1.3 Impacts on Fauna

The subject site provides potential foraging opportunities for native mobile and migratory species that may use resources in the subject site as part of larger foraging territories. However the subject site is unlikely to be important for the survival of any threatened fauna species.

As described in Section 3.3 the vegetation present on the subject site is generally consistent with young regrowth, mostly from the placement of fill. No old growth or hollow-bearing trees were recorded during surveys and fauna habitats are limited to foraging resources from flowering and fruiting plants, and the provision of some shelter habitat in dense areas of vegetation. The subject site does not directly adjoin a significant reserve, and hence it is partially isolated. Nonetheless, there are marginal potential foraging resources present for a small number of threatened fauna species. Potential impacts to these species are described below.

i. Impacts to the Green and Golden Bell Frog

Results of the targeted fauna surveys indicate that at the time of survey, the wetland basins, as shown in Figure 2.1, did not support a population of Green and Golden Bell Frogs as no individuals were seen or heard and no tadpoles or juvenile frogs were observed, at a time of year where both would be expected to be present at some point over the course of the surveys.

Basin 1 does provide suitable foraging, breeding and shelter habitat for this species with extensive areas of in-stream aquatic vegetation, including reeds such as Typha sp. and also open water. Overwintering habitat also occurs around both basins in the form of rocks and debris. However, surveys of the subject site failed to detect this species, and no records occur in the near vicinity for more than fifteen years (Bionet, 2012). A more recent record of


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

the species occurs within 4km of the subject site, however the record and the subject site are separated by significant areas of residential and commercial development, thus movement between the sites considered highly unlikely. It is generally considered that Green and Golden Bell Frogs have not occurred in this part of the Sydney Basin for some time. Extant breeding populations are well known in the Sydney area, and locations do not include the subject site or proximate areas to the M2 Motorway. Additionally, the Project involves the retention and expansion of the detention basin, thus providing a greater area of potential habitat for the species in the long term. It is considered unlikely that the subject site is used by the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and therefore the proposed development is not considered likely to constitute a significant impact to this species, as indicated by the Assessment of Significance (outlined in Appendix E).

ii. Impacts to the Eastern Bentwing Bat

The Eastern Bentwing Bat is a cave-dependant species which also utilises man-made structures as roosting habitat and is known to roost in the expansion cracks of several of the larger arch shaped culverts beneath the M2 Motorway. The potential culvert habitat within or adjoining the subject site is identified in Figure 2.1. This species is likely to forage over the waterbodies and amongst vegetation on the subject site. A call from this species was recorded during survey work, suggesting an individual feeding in the vicinity. However, visual inspection of the two types of culverts occurring on the site showed the inside surfaces of the culverts to be largely unsuitable for roosting.

For the purposes of this assessment, the culverts were inspected during 2 separate site visits during the same season. It is therefore considered a possibility that bats may occur there at other times of the year, although they are not expected to use these structures for anything other than occasional temporary roost sites (refer to Section 3.3.1)

All recorded culverts extend a long way back and it is possible that the occasional crack in concrete would provide a temporary roost for a microbat. However, the lack of available habitat and small size of the culverts (making any roost site more accessible to potential predators) means that they are highly unlikely to provide significant roosting or overwintering habitat for the Eastern Bentwing Bat.

Culverts that pass under the M2 Motorway along the length of the widening will need to be extended (typically by retrofitting pipe to the end of the culvert). Some of the culverts surveyed within the subject site do not pass under the M2, and will therefore not require widening works. Where works are to occur, and also for adjoining culverts, there will be a potential for noise and vibration impacts to be exacerbated, beyond what is already experienced due to the existing motorway.

Previous assessments and surveys of this species as part of the M2 Upgrade project have suggested that elevated vibration from works are more likely than noise increases to impact this species. It is unknown to what extent the proposed works will increase vibration and noise inside the culverts, and therefore to what extent this impact will be exacerbated, beyond what is already experienced due to the existing motorway usage. However, it is not considered likely that the proposal will have a significant negative impact on this species,


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

such that a local population would be placed at risk of extinction. Nonetheless, the Eastern Bentwing bat is a species of particular significance in terms of the assessment of impacts due to M2 Upgrade works, and monitoring and mitigation measures are provided in Section 5.2 to deal with any potential disturbances to Eastern Bentwing Bats during construction.

The proposed development is not considered likely to constitute a significant impact to this species, as indicated by the Assessment of Significance (outlined in Appendix E).

iii. Impacts to Threatened Hollow-dwelling microbats

A number of hollow-dwelling threatened microbats, including; Yellow-bellied Sheathtail bat and Eastern Freetail bat, are likely to forage within the subject site and adjoining lands, as part of a broad home-range. The lack of hollow trees on the subject site is a limitting resource however, and it is not likely that the removal of a small area of poor quality foraging habitat would have a significant impact on these species.

iv. Impacts to Threatened Birds

A number of threatened birds known from the locality (including the Powerful Owl, Swift Parrot and Regent Honeyeater) have the potential to use the site for occasional foraging. These species are not likely to roost or nest on the subject site however due to the lack of suitable habitat, or be impacted by the removal of vegetation for the proposed works, as abundant foraging resources are available elsewhere in the locality. No significant impact is therefore predicted on any threatened birds as a result of the proposed works.

v. Impacts to the Grey-headed Flying-fox

The Grey-headed Flying-fox is likely to occasionally use the site for foraging but no camps occur on or adjacent to the site and abundant suitable habitat exists in the general vicinity for this species. No significant impact is therefore predicted on this species as a result of the proposed works.

4.2 Indirect Impacts

4.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation

The proposed project would remove a small area of exotic vegetation/habitat within the subject site. Given that the vegetation occurs along an already highly fragmented and disturbed parcel of land alongside the M2 Motorway, the proposed removal of this vegetation and habitat is unlikely to exacerbate fragmentation further than current conditions.

4.2.2 Edge Effects

Clearing of vegetation within the subject site can lead to an increase in edge effects, including increased weed invasion, and invasion by feral fauna species. However the site is already highly disturbed, located adjacent to the M2 Motorway and being largely located on


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

fill. Therefore, the increase in edge effects would not be significant in the context of the existing environment.

The subject site is approximately 0.07 km from a portion of Lane Cove National Park, and 0.56km from the Lane Cove River. As the NP is downslope of the subject site, there is the potential for exacerbation of edge effects. However, the subject site, and directly adjoining areas of vegetation immediately downslope of the subject site are both currently dominated by exotic species. This weedy edge already acts as a buffer to the high quality areas of Lane Cove National Park further downslope, and the Project is unlikely to increase the existing impacts from weed invasion and sedimentation as a result of edge effects.

Such impacts are likely to be short-term, and it is likely that the edge zones of the subject site, and the National Park can be managed to reduced weeds through long-term management by Transurban, once the ramp is constructed.

4.2.3 Alteration to Hydrological Regimes

Changes to drainage lines can affect the integrity, structure and composition of habitat and thus, have secondary impacts on the species that rely on them. Given that there are no natural creek-lines within the subject site, no significant alteration to the morphology of a waterway, and hence an alteration to the hydrological regimes is expected to occur as a result of the project. However, the changes to runoff from the subject site to the downslope waterway, being Lane Cove River, has the potential to alter its hydrology. This is a particular risk due to the increase in non-permeable surfaces from the new onramp. Nonetheless, due to the stormwater controls proposed, it is not expected that the Proposal will result in a signficant change in the hydrology of Lane Cove River, or other natural surface water channels.

4.2.4 Increased Sedimentation and Erosion

During the construction of the proposed project the adjoining vegetation can be impacted by sedimentation and erosion. An increase in the amount of sediment and eroded material can smother retained vegetation if appropriate control measures are not implemented. Suitable erosion and sediment control plans would be implemented as part of the project to mitigate any potential impacts in these areas, and therefore this indirect impact is unlikely to be exacerbated by the Proposal.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Chapter 5

Amelioration and Mitigation Measures

Amelioration and mitigation measures for potential biodiversity impacts discussed in Chapter 4 are provided below following the general principles:

Avoid impacts;

Mitigate impacts; and

Offset impacts.

5.1 Avoidance Measures

Potential impacts have been avoided by considering design options to reduce the amount of excavation and intensive earthworks that would be required and therefore minimise the potential impacts to the surrounding environment. Wherever practicable the project has been designed within the existing footprint of the M2 Motorway, thereby minimising the extent of intrusions into surrounding land. This includes construction compound site locations and proposed access and egress routes. Where vegetation clearing could not be avoided, the extent of clearing has been minimised.

Further measures that would be employed to avoid impacts upon biodiversity include:

Marking of final clearing limits to further reduce clearing extents and to retain potential habitat and other ecologically significant features at the edges of the clearing limits wherever practicable;

Fencing installed to mark the limits of clearing and “no-go” areas surrounding the footprint to ensure that vehicles and other associated direct disturbances. This would also include construction compounds and stockpile sites not to enter adjacent areas of vegetation outside the footprint; and

Construction staff informed with regards to the status and location of protected areas during site induction and/or tool box talks.

As construction methodologies are developed for the Project, attention would be given to opportunities to further reduce the need for clearing native vegetation where there are reasonable and feasible options to do so.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

5.2 Mitigation Measures

A range of mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce biodiversity impacts, including:

Periodic monitoring of the impacted culverts on site prior to and during construction to ensure that they are not being utilised by microbats at the time. This would involve a simple inspection by an ecologist with a torch. Should microbats be detected during surveys, suitable mitigation measures would be employed to minimise impacts on the bats from construction activities. A number of mitigation measures have been outlined in the Bat Survey Report for the M2 (Cumberland Ecology 2011a). Should microbats be detected in the culverts during survey, one, or a number of, appropriate mitigation techniques outlined in the report would be employed. Specific mitigation, if required, would depend on the time of year that detection occurs.

If bats are identified utilising the culverts on site during the construction phase, monitoring of the mitigation measures would be undertaken to ensure the effectiveness of the measures. If it is found that the mitigation measures are not effective, construction works would cease until mitigation measures have been successfully adapted to counter-act these impacts.

Prior to any works within the existing detention basins, a pre-clearance survey would be undertaken by an ecologist to remove and relocate fauna from the basins into another suitable basin nearby. This will include searches for the Green and Golden Bell Frog in areas of suitable habitat.

Prior to any clearing, a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist would conduct a pre-clearing fauna survey. Should any habitat features be identified, such as tree hollows or possum dreys, a two-stage clearing and tree felling process would be implemented to reduce the risk of injury to any nesting fauna from clearing. An ecologist would be present to supervise during the felling of habitat trees;

Native vegetation would be retained where possible. Areas of vegetation to be retained would be clearly marked in order to reduce the risk of over-clearing;

Clearing for construction compounds would be minimised by retaining mature trees where feasible within compound sites;

Erosion and sediment control measures would be in place in accordance with an erosion and sedimentation control plan both during and after construction.

Weed management would occur throughout the extent and duration of the Project.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

5.3 Offset Measures

Under the Conditions of Approval for the approved M2 Upgrade Project, specifically condition 2.14, compensatory offsets are required where impacts to endangered ecological communities, threatened species or their habitats results from the Project. There are no anticipated impacts to endangered ecological communities, threatened species or their habitats as a result of this Project. Consequently, no biodiversity offsets are deemed to be necessary for the current proposal.


FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

Chapter 6

Conclusion

No threatened ecological communities are present on the site and the existing vegetation no longer represents a native vegetation unit. No threatened flora species listed under the TSC Act or the EPBC Act are known from the subject site or considered likely to occur there.

One threatened Fauna species, the Eastern Bentwing Bat was recorded foraging within the subject site but the subject site is unlikely to provide roosting habitat for this species. Suitable habitat also occurs for the Green and Golden Bell Frog but this species is considered to have a very low chance of occurrence here. This is due to the lack of records during survey and in the vicinity within the last 15 years, and the level of physical separation between the subject site and the most recent record of the species.

Database and habitat analysis showed that several threatened fauna species have been recorded from the locality. The vast majority of threatened fauna species known from the locality are however unlikely to frequent the subject site, beyond the occasional visit as part of a wider foraging event. Such species include highly mobile bats and birds, which are not restricted to the habitats present. While the subject site potentially does provide feeding resources for mobile and wide-ranging fauna, it is more likely to provide for opportunistic foraging rather than supporting a local population.

Assessments of Significance (7 Part Tests) have been prepared for threatened fauna considered to have potential to occur on the site and are potentially at risk from impacts relating to the proposal; namely the Green and Golden Bell Frog and the Eastern Bentwing Bat. These 7 Part Tests have concluded that no significant impact is likely to occur to these fauna species as a result of the Project. For this reason, the preparation of a Species Impact Statement or Referral to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, under the EPBC Act is not required.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LANE COVE RAMP, AS PART OF THE M2 UPGRADE PROJECT i

FINAL AECOM

25 JULY 2012

References

AECOM 2010. Flora and Fauna Assessment Report M2 Motorway Upgrade, AECOM. BOTANIC GARDENS TRUST. 2012. PlantNET [Online]. Available:

http://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/search_plant_net [Accessed 2012]. CHURCHILL, S. 2008. Australian Bats, Allen & Unwin, Crowes Nest, NSW. CUMBERLAND ECOLOGY 2011a. M2 Upgrade Microchiropteran Bat Survey Report - Draft,

Epping NSW, Cumberland Ecology Pty Ltd. CUMBERLAND ECOLOGY 2011b. M2 Upgrade Project, Biodiversity Offset Strategy,

Epping, NSW. DECC 2009. Threatened species survey and assessment guidelines: field survey methods

for fauna - Amphibians, Hurstville, NSW, Department of Environment and Climate Change.

DECCW (NSW) 2009. The Native Vegetation of the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority Area. Draft., Hurstville, NSW, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.

DEWHA 2010. Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened frogs; Guidelines for detecting frogs listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, ACT, Department of Environment, Heritage, Water and the Arts.

HARDEN, G. J. 1990-1993. Flora of NSW Volumes 1-4, Kensington, New South Wales University Press.

OEH 2012. Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) - Threatened Species Profile. OEH. PENNAY, M., LAW, B. & REINHOLD, L. 2004. Bat Calls of New South Wales, Hurstville,

Department of Environment and Conservation.

Appendix E Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

Documents

Transcript of Appendix E Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment